Book Review - The Concept of Jacksonian Democracy: New York as a Test Case
In The Concept of Jacksonian Democracy: New York as a Test Case, Lee Benson performs a unique and progressive study of the political culture of New York State in the 19th century. Through his work, Benson presents his central thesis: there was no true "Jacksonian" democracy; the author finds the idea "sterile and deceptive" (Benson, 1961). Benson distrusted the prevailing narrative regarding Jacksonian democracy, in which economic status was the indicator of partisanship, in favor of a much more complex focus on ethnicity and religious affiliation. In short, Benson seeks to correct what he feels is a grievous error with regards to how Americans' status as a Jacksonian Democrat was determined - he calls his book "essentially an essay on the clarification of historical concepts" (Benson, p. vii).
The book starts with a bit of revisionist history, recounting the Jacksonian Era of the United States in a much different light than the prevailing historiography. In the prevailing wisdom of the time, Andrew Jackson and the Democrats were at the forefront of a new dynasty of liberalism in politics, with a greater focus on egalitarianism and democracy. However, Benson argues that, in New York, Martin Van Buren's "Albany Regency" faction were fairly regressive with regards to universal voting rights for men, eliminating economic privilege and social and economic reforms. He also argues that people from all walks of life were found in both the Democrat and Whig parties, and that both parties alike championed egalitarianism and greater economic development.
Benson believes that other scholars had viewed politics through "economic determinis[m]," deciding that partisan affiliation was related directly to whether Americans were rich or poor (p. 165). Focusing on New York State in particular, Benson performs a test case, of a sort, by examining the voting history and population of those citizens to represent the rest of the United States at that time, using more precise research methods and analysis. The author's ideas in this book are in contest with many other scholars in the subject of Jacksonian politics - Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. argues that economic status was a primary factor in the casting of ballot votes, selecting a certain party if they were rich or poor, while Benson challenges this idea. Quantitative research in this book is used to conclude that voters cast their ballots not on economic status alone, but based on their ethnic and religious affiliations; these were much higher indicators of political leanings than wealth. Benson particularly focuses on these ethnocultural groups, which competed with each other due to their prejudices and differences in lifestyle. For example, Catholics and Protestants will often fight each other politically as well as religiously, using their voting power to disrupt the other's progress within the American government. To that end, Benson says that socioeconomic differences were not an indicator of whether or not someone was a Jacksonian Democrat.
Despite this contrarian view of many established Jacksonian scholars, many of Benson's points do not hold up completely under scrutiny. The sources that he uses are of equally legitimate validity as those of the scholars he lambasts; however, his attempts at changing the established narrative of Jacksonian politics is brave and admirable. Benson takes great care to separate the different kinds of reform movements working at the time and warns against linking them with labels that no longer have the same meaning today (something he credits to his predecessors). The author is particularly inventive for creating the phrase "campaign claptrap" to refer to the propaganda and rhetoric that was being slung about at the time of the Jacksonian era, many of which scholars took seriously and incorporated them into their flawed readings of the time (p. 81). However, he did also study those attacks in depth, noting that exaggerating the failings of political rivals was "politically rewarding" (p. 52). These arguments and more are used to dispel previous scholars' notions of a class war taking place between poor Democrats and rich Whigs.
The overall goal of Benson's work is to establish a new historiography, one unburdened by the shackles of incorrect and presumptuous scholarship that provided shaky foundations for understanding this period of American history. Once he dispelled his predecessors' claims, he got to work with the real questions, such as "who voted for whom" (p. 123). To do this, Benson compares the 1844 New York state returns to the ones in its previous and future elections, finding little to no difference: "The most revealing thing that happened in the 1844 election was that so little happened" (p. 137). He also disproves notions of Democrats being the "popular party," as the electorate of New York State was fairly evenly split among that party and the Whigs (p. 133). Benson explains these points by bringing up the mechanics of a voting cycle (in which a long stretch of stable voting patterns is bookended by a small phase of quickly changing party affiliations).
Given these new findings in American voting behavior, and the aforementioned emphasis on ethnocultural groups in lieu of economic ones, Benson moves on to his evidence to contribute to "a general theory of American voting behavior" (p. 277). This is what opens up the people's voting patterns to spite and prejudice, rather than political idealism or purpose: due to the lack of actual conflict between Whigs and Democrats with regards to policy, American voters had the freedom and the free time to strike out at competitors and enemies on the cultural or religious bend. Battles between Whigs and Democrats were waged over "moral attitudes and ways of life," instead of "the class composition of parties"; Democrats were denounced in Whig papers as "loafers around the grog-shops" who "have idled and squandered" (p. 198). This kind of combative campaigning was focused on the differences in lifestyle between the parties instead of class differences, strongly supporting Benson's assertions.
In conclusion, Benson's work provides a fascinating and somewhat contrarian view of Jacksonian politics. Instead of following with the common thought of his contemporaries, Benson seeks to break down that foundation of Jacksonian scholarship and build anew, this time with a stronger basis in fact and sound theory. Among these changes is a shift from socioeconomic factors determining voting criteria to ethnocultural groups, as well as a more jaundiced look at the myth that Jacksonian Democracy was the last bastion of liberalism and egalitarianism in America at the time. The political environment of the 1820s was freshly democratized, and the Whig party had a surprisingly progressive agenda that matched (if not exceeded) the Jacksonians. Benson's work is controversial, likely among other Jackson scholars, for its challenging ideas and its focus on religious differences and conflict among American voters - regardless of its veracity, the work is strongly supported, researched and argued by Benson.
References
Benson, L. (1961). The Concept of Jacksonian Democracy: New York as a Test Case. Princeton University Press.
Schlesinger, Jr., A.M. (1945). The Age of Jackson. Little, Brown & Co.
